1

John Anthony Teleconference

U.N. Foundation

Senator John Kerry and Reid Detchon

September 15, 2009 11:30 a.m.

Chantelle: This is a recording for the John Anthony

teleconference with the United Nations Foundation, Tuesday,

September 15th, 2009 scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

Hello, and thank you for your patience in holding. Welcome to

the United Nations Foundation conference call. I would like to

introduce our speakers for today’s conference. We have Senate

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Senator John Kerry,

United Nations Foundation President Timothy Wirth, and Reid

Detchon, Vice President Energy and Climate, United Nations

Foundation.

Please be aware that each of your lines is in a listen-

only mode. At the conclusion of our speakers’ presentation, we

will open the floor for questions. Instructions will be given

at that time on the procedure to follow if you would like to

ask a question. It is now my pleasure to turn this morning’s

conference over to Reid Detchon. You may begin.

Reid Detchon: Thank you, Chantelle and thanks for all of

you who are on the line right now. We will have a couple of

opening comments from Senator Kerry and Senator Wirth and then

go straight to questions. Senator Kerry, this week climate is

getting back in the news again - the major economies forum will

2

be meeting here in Washington. Next week the Secretary General

is convening a U.N. summit on climate change and then the G-20

will be meeting in Pittsburgh. What are your hopes and

expectations for this round of progress towards Copenhagen?

John Kerry: Well Reid, first of all, thank you for

helping to organize this and thanks to Tim Wirth and the U.N.

Foundation for helping to be part of this. I am delighted to

be on this call with an old friend, Tim Wirth, who worked

together with me and Al Gore and John Chaffey and a bunch of us

for a number of years on this topic as far back as in the

1980s. This is a critical moment for the climate change

debate in the Senate, in the country as a whole and globally,

internationally because in less than three months from now, 192

nations are going to gather in Copenhagen and hammer out a new

global treaty.

This week and next week, we, the United States, are

playing host to a series of critical meetings, which kicks off

really the final leg of negotiations before December. But the

truth is that what happens now in September in the meetings in

New York and in Pittsburgh is going to really lay a lot of the

foundation for what is achievable in December. The State

Department this week also hosts the Major Economies Forum. And

around these discussions, the United States and China are going

3

to continue the bilateral dialogue that has been going on on

climate, energy and the environment.

Simultaneously, my committee, the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, is hosting a breakfast next Thursday for all of the

environment ministers who are here for the G20 and for the New

York activities in order to discuss the status of international

negotiations and the domestic actions in our respective

countries. So with Climate Week next week at the U.N. where

hundreds of government and business leaders from around the

world are going to come to New York to support these

international efforts, a lot of activity will take place, but

there’s a lot of opportunity staring us in the face.

I am looking forward to delivering remarks on the U.S.-

China Climate cooperation in New York on the 21st. And then

later that week, the G20 is going to meet in Pittsburgh with an

ambitious agenda on economic recovery and global rebalancing

and reform of international institutions. So I frankly am a

little disappointed that the climate question is not climate

change financing, is not larger on the agenda in Pittsburgh and

I hope that the progress in New York and even in Pittsburgh,

nevertheless, will address that disappointment, in a sense.

Two countries, the United States and China, are really

going to set the tone for the international climate change

dialogue. And I think the crucial question is can we together,

4

can America and China, forge a partnership that is capable of

acting boldly enough to prevent a climate catastrophe. And the

reason, obviously, is the size of our economies and the fact

that we represent the largest emitter in the developed world

and China represents now the number one emitter in the world,

as well as the largest sort of transitional economy, economy

moving from developing country to developed country.

So I just say that these conversations, I think, between

us and China are at a critical stage. I think they need to

speed up. I think they need to focus. I think they need to

come to agreement, as they are trying, on a number of different

possible climate change areas where they could make progress.

And I am very hopeful that over the next month we are going to

see some positive announcements. But one thing that I will

make very, very clear, and I’ve said this when I went to China

a little over two months ago and held meetings there, I’ve said

it in a number of speeches that I’ve made. That we understand

that the United States of America has to lead. We have an

obligation to lead and it is critical that the United States

step up and meet its responsibilities with respect to

Copenhagen.

But China also needs to understand, as well as the

developing world needs to understand, that we cannot enter into

a global treaty without meaningful commitments from China to be

5

part of the solution. They can do it on a different level from

the United States, as we have agreed at prior meetings, but it

must be measurable, reportable and verifiable the steps that

they take. And I am confident that China is prepared to take

some steps that will be meaningful with respect to Copenhagen.

So there are other things to discuss here, but my hope is,

I’m working with Barbara Boxer very closely and with a large

group of senators, reaching out. We hope to present our

legislation somewhere over the course of this month or the

earliest part of October, but I hope by the end of this month

we will be ready to present to the Senate and to the country

what we think we ought to be doing. And that is our schedule.

Reid Detchon: Thank you, Senator Kerry. Senator Wirth,

we’ve just heard some of the critical steps that need to go

forward before Copenhagen. You’ve been traveling the world and

your team has been traveling the world talking to negotiators

about the prospects. What do you see as achievable in

Copenhagen and the steps that need to happen before then?

Timothy Wirth: Thank you Reid and let me begin by

thanking Senator Kerry for his longtime commitment in this area

and his very deep understanding of the climate and energy

issue. Probably nobody in the Senate has as much experience or

understanding and thank goodness he has got the key role that

he now has chairing the committee, being in the leadership and

6

working with Senator Boxer. We look forward, as I think

everybody in the climate and energy community, to working

closely with him and his group and moving the Senate, which has

to be done.

Let me turn to next week and the Secretary General and

what is happening in New York. As we know, that is the meeting

of the General Assembly. There will be a special session on

climate and energy and then the leaders of much of the

developed world and the move to Pittsburgh, so we have a varied

for the week. So next week is extremely important. The

Secretary General, as we know, has exercised really amazing

leadership. And I say amazing, nobody had any expectation when

he came in to become Secretary General that he from Korea would

be as committed or as knowledgeable. He laid out the basic

themes in Bali on mitigation, adaptation, technology, finance,

the fourth pathways that get us to a climate solution. And he

is now calling for the countries of the world to “seal the

deal” at Copenhagen.

The question, of course, is what does that mean? What are

the components of the deal that get sealed? And as Senator

Kerry said so well, we have opportunity staring us in the face;

what are the specific elements of that? It seems to us that as

you move towards Copenhagen, there are a number of very

specific items in the deal that can be put together. In the

7

area of efficiency and access, really mitigation, there is no

question about the fact that we can get universal access to

modern energy services by a date certain that ought to be part

of the mission of the U.N. and the millennium development

goals. And achieving that, we should double the rate of

efficiency around the world and do that by increasing our

percentage of energy efficiency every year. This pays for

itself, it is good economics, it’s very good climate and energy

policy, it is good for everybody. That should be part of the

deal.

Renewables – it seems to us in the discussions we’ve had

all over the world. We can get 20 percent of the global

electricity by renewable by 2020. That is an achievable, very

real part of the deal. In terms of forests, we can reduce the

rate of deforestation by 25 percent early in the next decade

and certainly by 50 percent by 2020. The Norwegians are

leading that effort. That again is an almost non-cost element

of a climate program.

In technology transfer, the opportunities in both natural

gas and carbon coals sequestration are very real. Those are

the most important elements of a technology transfer package.

And finally the finance and that is going to primarily evolve

around adaptation. The poorest people in the world, the

poorest countries in the world are those that are going to be

8

impacted the most rapidly by climate change. How do we finance

help for them to adapt and to change and to make this huge

climate impact coming their way more bearable and possible.

Final point, Senator Kerry is absolutely right in talking

about the U.S.-China relationship. We hope that this

administration has the kind of deep rooted negotiation going on

with China that is necessary. The President is going to be in

China in late November. My guess is you certainly can’t come

away from those discussions in China without a pretty clear

commitment from the U.S. So those are the elements of what

seal the deal can mean from the Secretary General’s perspective

and from the U.N.’s perspective. This all fits very neatly in

with the draft legislative ideas that Senator Kerry and Senator

Boxer have been talking about.

So all of this has the opportunity for beginning to merge

together. And like so many people who have been working on

this for a long time, we are very hopeful. We understand the

role that has to be played by the United States and we

understand the importance of the leadership, particularly again

Senator Kerry, who we thank for being with us today and for his

unique and continuing leadership.

Reid Detchon: Thank you, Senator. Chantelle, I think we

are ready for questions.

9

Chantelle: Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, at this

time we would now like to open the floor for questions. If you

would like to ask a question, please press the star key

followed by the 1 key on your touchtone phone now. Once again,

if you would like to ask a question, please press the star key

followed by the 1 key on your touchtone phone now. Our first

question will come from Dina Capiello [phonetic], Associated

Press.

Dina Capiello: Hi Senator Kerry, Mr. Wirth. How are you

guys today?

Timothy Wirth: Good. Thanks, Dina.

Dina Capiello: A quick question. As you guys both know,

in about 15 minutes, Lisa Jackson and Secretary LeHood will be

at the White House announcing the new regulations for the first

ever greenhouse gas emissions standard for automobiles. With

the Senate bill delayed and Todd Stern just last week

acknowledging that a big divide still exists between developing

countries and developed nations on the international front,

what impact do you think this announcement today, which was

expected, will have in terms of momentum for domestic

legislation and also for international negotiations?

John Kerry: Well first of all, the Senate bill, let me

just emphasize, is only marginally delayed. But both because

of my hip surgery, as well as Senator Kennedy’s passing, we

10

were unable to meet for a certain period of time. And that is

about the period of time it has been delayed. But I think we

are on schedule in terms of Senate leader Harry Reid’s schedule

for the Senate. We will be proceeding to mark up in October

and the committee and the bill with come out of there and come

to the floor. So we’re going to have this debate in the Senate

and we are going to proceed forward.

Today’s announcement is an important component of it. I

think that it’s important for other countries to see the

seriousness with which this administration and the United

States are taking our responsibilities to reduce emissions and

part of that will come in the transportation sector, which is

outside of the parameters of the Markey-Waxman bill in the

Senate – sort of a separate entity.

So the administration moving forward today through its

executive administrative capacity is a very important component

of sending a message to people that we are going to do this

across our economy in ways that make sense. And I welcome it –

it’s been long overdue and I look forward to the announcement.

Reid Detchon: I think that since we have a hard and fast

deadline for Senator Kerry at noon and Senator Wirth can

continue on a bit after that, let’s focus particularly on

questions for Senator Kerry. Chantelle?

11

Chantelle: Thank you and the next question will come from

Andrew Revkin, The New York Times.

Andrew Revkin: Thanks for holding the call – the more of

these the better. In the list that Senator Wirth rattled off

of things that could be accomplished, many of them have been

pledged for a long time under the treaty process, certainly the

adaptation stuff, and it has never come to pass in terms of

money. So one question is what gives you a sense of confidence

that you can get meaningful commitments in both directions,

from the China coming out and on adaptation from the west going

to places like Africa, which is threatening to pull out of the

talks, according to some stuff I just heard.

And one quick additional related thought is many of these

things look like they could be accomplished without a treaty.

You also didn’t mention markets, you know, global cap and

trade, as being a vital component. Are those things so hard to

get that maybe you don't need to push on an actual treaty

outcome in Copenhagen as opposed to other kinds of outcomes?

John Kerry: Well, there are a lot of questions in there,

a lot of questions, but let me try to begin at the beginning

here. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I will

tell you that I am deeply committed to trying to get the

adaptation component of this accomplished. And I understand

the importance of it. I have been to most of the meetings, the

12

key meetings. I was in Posnan, I was in Bali, Kyoto and so

forth, and I understand how critical it is for the United

States – not just the United States, for the developed world,

for the major emitters over the last 150 years who have created

a problem for many countries, which don't emit or are

marginally emitting. And they are going to suffer the greatest

consequences, in many cases, of impact – from sea level rise,

from desertification, from deforestation and so forth.

So we have a new to respond there and it is, incidentally,

not unique to the global climate change issue; it is a

component of America’s foreign policy and has been for years,

to try to provide aid and assistance in a structured form to

many of these endeavors. Some of this, I believe, can be

accomplished through our USAID efforts, by refocusing them and

recalibrating them through this particular effort and some can

be accomplished in the specific financing mechanisms called for

in the protocol.

It is interesting to note that Europe stepped up just a

few days ago in a very significant way committing up to $100

billion or 100 billion Euro, I guess equivalent, and $2 to $15

billion in on an annual basis. So that is a marker, if you

will, which is important for us to take under advisement as we

proceed forward.

13

The House bill has a one percent level committed to

adaptation. Some wanted it to be higher and some want it to be

higher today. I met yesterday, for instance, with

representatives of the major evangelical leadership across the

country and they are committed to trying to raise that level.

I am committed to trying to raise it in the Senate and I think

hopefully, we will be able to find a consensus that understands

this is part of the glue that holds this entire effort

together. And I know the administration is committed to trying

to set an appropriate level. So we’re going to try to do what

we can to augment what was accomplished already in the House

efforts and we will see where we wind up.

Reid Detchon: Senator Wirth, would you like to add to

that?

Timothy Wirth: Well, why don't we wait with other

questions and then I’ll come in and just try to do – in

summary, I agree largely with what John said. I don't disagree

with it at all. I would disagree with the premise of Andy’s

question that a lot of these specifics have been promised

before. I don't think that’s true. In the area of efficiency,

renewable, forestation or tech transfer, these are all new and

important elements of the deal and the specifics that come out

of Copenhagen, but we can come back and talk about that.

14

John Kerry: Very good. One thing that – on China, we

are, I think, making some progress and I think people need to

look at the glass not as half empty, but as half full in the

following way. China made it very clear to me through top

leadership that they plan to go to Copenhagen and be a

“constructive, positive force.” And the key is to close the

gap with respect to a standard that was agreed on in Posnan and

Bali, which is that while the less developed world will not

have to meet the same level of reductions as the, what are

called Annex One countries, the developed world countries, they

do have to contribute. And they have to have a common and

shared responsibility, which is reducing emissions and to do so

in a way that is measurable, reportable and verifiable.

In every conversation that I have had with them, and I

think Todd Stern similarly, it has been to reinforce that we

accept the notion that we have agreed on a framework where

their effort, because they are still a developing country –

very powerful, very rich, very big emissions in some places,

but they’ve got a huge proportion of the population that still

lives on less than a dollar a day and is in transition.

And so in recognition of that, we have accepted that they

need to do measurable, reportable, verifiable reductions that

set us all on a glide path where we meet. And this is

obviously subject to the negotiation, where is the meeting

15

point where you are all in the same, you know, operating under

the same rule and the same standard. And that obviously has

got to be negotiated. That is what these negotiations are

about.

Timothy Wirth: I think that Senator Kerry and I would

both agree that in this important China negotiation, we don't

want to get hung up on trying to say that the U.S. and China

will reduce the same percentage or the same amount. Those

numbers can just drag us right down and we each have different

histories and different obligations. Where we can agree, and

we ought to focus on those are, for example, an increasing

efficiency. Both the U.S. and China can benefit tremendously

for doing this and setting an example for the world on

renewable and setting standards for the increasing percentage

of renewables and generation of electricity. Both sides can

agree on that.

On various agricultural standards and where agriculture

becomes a sink for carbon, both sides can agree on that. In

technology development and look at the new possibilities, for

example, on shale gas. Both sides can agree on it. So there

is a whole menu where the U.S. and China can together agree

without getting into the almost ideological purity discussions

of who reduces how much. Let’s look at those areas where there

are many, many opportunities for agreement. Again, as Senator

16

Kerry said, we have this opportunity staring us in the face.

Let’s grab those opportunities and make those the core of the

Copenhagen outcomes.

John Kerry: And again, I completely – Tim has very well

articulated that opportunity and those possibilities and I

completely agree with what he just said.

Reid Detchon: Thank you, Senator. Chantelle, another

question?

Chantelle: Thank you, gentlemen. The next question will

come from Juliette Alprin [phonetic] from The Washington Post.

Juliette Alprin: I just have a quick question for Tim

Wirth, so if you want to skip me and go to someone who has a

Kerry specific question and then come back to me right after,

that is great.

Reid Detchon: Okay.

Chantelle: Thank you. Okay, our next question will come

from Ann Thompson, NBC News.

Ann Thompson: Senator Kerry and Senator Wirth, good

morning and thank you for doing this. My question is, so as we

watch what happens in the next two weeks basically, what are

the signposts that you are looking for that indicate that we –

what do we have to see happen in the next two weeks that

indicate that we are really on the road to an agreement in

Copenhagen?

17

John Kerry: I missed a little bit of the question because

somebody was handing me a “I’ve got to be somewhere” note.

Ann Thompson: I’m sorry, Senator Kerry –

John Kerry: You said what are the signposts?

Ann Thompson: Yes, what has to happen in the next two

weeks that makes an agreement in Copenhagen possible?

John Kerry: Well, I think we have to make – I mean, it

would be good to see China and the United States both publicly

affirm their desire with some specifics as to how they will

proceed to Copenhagen to make it a success and these are some

of the things that can help to do that. And they are along the

lines of the things that Tim Wirth just articulated. I mean,

there’s so much space here for joint cooperation with respect

to energy efficiency, with respect to renewable alternatives,

either research and/or deployment, joint ventures which are

being discussed. I know that Secretary Chu and Secretary Locke

were both over there and there are a number of projects that

are geared up and ready to go forward. If we can lock those

down, that would be helpful.

With respect to finance, I think it would be helpful for

the United States to reassert its commitment to the adaptation

and to the some of the, perhaps even be more specific in terms

of a base amount or a floor, if you will. The question of

financing is critical. Technology transfer, technical

18

assistance, that whole arena is ripe for unbelievable joint

cooperative efforts.

So there are just enormous numbers of possibilities here

for cooperation that can lead to an atmosphere of everybody

realizing that this is the moment and that the two largest

emitters in the world are serious about leading people to a

successful outcome in Copenhagen. And any of those sort of

affirmations and/or announcements will help advance this.

Reid Detchon: I know that Senator Kerry has to go now and

let me thank you again.

John Kerry: Let me thank everybody very, very much for

being onboard and I appreciate the reaction that this important

– I think it would be good if we kind of keep this going. I

think post G20 and post my meeting with the environment

ministers, it might be good if we got back –

Timothy Wirth: Early October would be a good time to kind

of review what happened in New York and where we go.

John Kerry: That would be great.

Timothy Wirth: Let’s do that.

John Kerry: Thanks, everybody.

Timothy Wirth: Thank you so much to Senator Kerry. I am

struck by, just as a background, let me say that I am struck by

the fact that both of us really focus on the China issues –

China, China, China. And that is going to define much of the

19

answer, I think Ann, to your question. We may not know in the

next two weeks, but how is the climate going to be related to

China. In the next two weeks, we’ll learn some more on the

language on adaptation and finance. I think there’s language

on adaptation and finance.

We’ll see probably that responsibility coming back from

the G20 more to the U.N. I wouldn’t be at all surprised. And

I think that that will be a positive sign. And I certainly

hope that there is going to be language related to agreements

on forestation, so-called RED – you know, reducing emissions

from deforestation and forest degradation. That is a very

important item. So there are a number of items out there, Ann,

that I think we’ll begin to see taking form in the next month.

If it doesn’t happen, then I think we may be at a time where

there is a lot of rhetorical discussion in Copenhagen.

It’s our hope that we get some very specific building

blocks that come out of these discussions so that there are

very specific returns from Copenhagen. We call it building

blocks. We’re not going to get a total cap and trade program,

like Andy Revkin asked about earlier. You know, that is

something that is down the line two years, three years, five

years globally. I think right now there are a number of very,

very important building blocks to get in line, many of which

20

Senator Kerry mentioned and I mentioned in our earlier

comments.

Just one final return on Dina’s question about oil and

CAFE standards. Let’s remember that our emissions are about a

third, a third and a third – about a third coming from the

transportation sector. If we can persist in the energy

efficiency standards that were announced today and add to that

alternative fuels plus natural gas, we’re going to make some

very significant progress. Those are three areas that can be

included in international negotiations, that everybody can lead

up to. They don't have to be part of the Senate legislation

here; it would be helpful if they were, but I think we’ve made

some major steps on CAFE. After twenty years of diddling,

we’ve now got some good steps forward. Juliette, you had a

question? How’s the bebe, that’s the more important thing.

Juliette: I was curious if you could just give us a take

of when you have Ban-Ki Moon, Achim Steiner and Davos Forum

obviously putting a tremendous amount of energy and effort into

kind of closing a deal in Copenhagen, what’s the progress that

you think they have made and kind of the challenges they faced

in getting the world to focus on this and moving towards a

concrete agreement. I was wondering if you could just speak to

that.

21

Timothy Wirth: I think the Secretary General has provided

a fascinating and very important umbrella in identifying the

importance of this and the priority of this. It has been his

number one contribution. I think that coming out of UNEP, the

work that has been done there on the kind of economic side of

this, the green job side of it, has been a very, very

significant step forward. We have a lot of work to do, both in

the United States and around the world at really identifying

what is meant by green jobs, what is meant by a green economy.

I and I think Achim Steiner has made a big, big contribution to

that internationally, just as John Podesta and the Center for

American Progress has done a similar sort of thing

domestically.

And then the third part, I think Davos had the toughest

part of the negotiation. He is the person who gets beat up day

in and day out by all of the ideological stuff. And the fact

that he has hung in there as much as he has and kept it all

together I think has been his contribution. So the three of

them have really anchored this very well. I think Helen Clark

is the new head of UNDP. I think in the next round, post-Kyoto

or post-Copenhagen, I think that we’ll find Helen Clark and

UNDP playing a bigger role than they might have done in the

past. So on the international front, those will be the four

horsemen of the next year or two.

22

Reid Detchon: Chantelle, I think that we can have another

question.

Chantelle: Thank you. Our next question will come from

Lisa Friedman, Climate Wire.

Lisa Friedman: Hi Senator, thanks for doing this today.

I wanted to go back to China and you know, your comments that

we don't want to get hung up on saying the U.S. and China

should produce the same percentage. I am wondering, what do

you think right now is the congressional buy-in for that idea?

Because there are many members of Congress who are saying that

China should cut ton for ton what the United States is,

whatever the United States cuts.

You know, right now China is talking about this idea of

slowing business as usual emissions, plateauing and peaking.

And, you know, understanding that the dates of all of that are

still in very early and tentative negotiations, what’s your

sense of how politically viable that will be in Congress? Do

you think enough members of Congress will find that acceptable

from China?

Timothy Wirth: That’s a really good question and it is

the toughest part of the whole negotiation, which is why I

think Senator Kerry mentioned it so much and we have put so

much attention on it. I hope that the United States, in its

negotiation, as Billy Hadley [phonetic], the kind of very

23

senior people who are able to penetrate and develop the kind of

trust relationships in China and vice versa that will allow us

to come to agreement.

I look at this, Lisa, a little bit as – in our last trip

to China, and we’re going to be there again in a couple of

weeks – I look at this as a kind of a ladder rather than

thinking that there is a single pole that is going to define

the U.S.-China relationship which are a set of numbers. You

are reducing how much. Rather, you look at it as a ladder with

we’re one side, China is the other and running across that

ladder, the rungs are efficiencies, for example, the rungs are

renewables, the rungs are standards for automobiles, the rungs

are natural gas, the rungs are technology transfer. Each of

those is ripe for a lot of cooperation between the two.

On efficiencies, for example, if we were to increase our

efficiency by one and a half percent or two percent per year

over the next ten years and China did the same thing, both of

us would benefit. It would be a positive thing. We could go

into the negotiation saying to everybody let’s all have that

kind of efficiency. If we looked at renewables, we could do

the same sort of thing, setting a long-term standard on

renewables that the amount of electricity that we are going to

generate, 20 percent of it ought to come, for example, from

renewables by 2020. That’s a goal that China can take on, a

24

goal that we can take on and would be an important rung on the

ladder.

In the area of deforestation, the Chinese are very, very

concerned about this, have undertaken a major reforestation

effort just as we have put a greater emphasis on the need to

slow deforestation. The two of those can go together with the

Norwegians, for example and we could reach a point of agreement

on a 50 percent goal by 2020 in reducing the rate of

deforestation plus some kind of a reforestation annexed to

that. I mean, these are examples of the areas of cooperation

between the United States and China, Lisa, that I think could

characterize and should characterize the successful outcomes

that Ann asked about or Juliette, that Ann asked about and give

us the opportunity to develop some real momentum.

Will that be enough to be politically acceptable in the

Congress? Well, probably not to those who want to tube the

deal, tube any kind of agreement. But to those who have to

have the ability to explain where we are headed over a long-

term period of time, I think there could be a number of very

specific and important markers, Juliette, that would help very

much with the politics of it. Again, it’s the toughest

relationship and the most important one.

Juliette: Thank you.

25

Reid Detchon: Chantelle, I think that we can have another

question.

Chantelle: Thank you. Our next question will come from

Don Hoping, Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

Don Hoping: Hi, Mr. Wirth. Actually, my question was for

Senator Kerry, but perhaps you can address this since you have

touched on the G20 a little bit. Senator Kerry mentioned that

he was a little disappointed that climate change financing was

not bigger on the agenda for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh.

What do you see, what’s the wish list for the G20 in terms of

financing commitments? You mentioned that you see adaptation

and finance responsibility coming back from the G20 to the

U.N., you think it’s a positive sign, there’s a positive sign

there. What do you think needs to happen here in Pittsburgh

from the G20, what are you looking for?

Timothy Wirth: Well, I think you see the E.U. come in,

they have with a large tentative package. The U.S. has not

made commitments. I think that the U.S. is, between the time

of Pittsburgh and Copenhagen and when they do it, I’m not quite

sure when the President will feel comfortable with that. Maybe

he’ll do it as part of, lead into that in Pittsburgh and then

do it in China. We have to make a commitment to adaptation

that is real, that is going to help the most impacted countries

as they were described by Senator Kerry. We have to do

26

something that helps get them going, get the poorest countries

to understand that we’re serious about helping them with

adaptation. That’s a very important part of, as the Secretary

General said, sealing the deal.

I think coming out of Pittsburgh could be the beginning of

an understanding that the economics of efficiency, the

economics of access, the economics of renewables and the

economics of the forest deal all make sense. We have very good

numbers from McKenzie [phonetic]. I think there is going to be

part of that discussion reflected in the Pittsburgh day, at

least I hope so. McKenzie has done such a good job of giving

us a good sense of what’s doable, what is feasible financially.

These are – maybe most importantly, you’re going to have

not only leadership, but finance ministers talking about

climate change. It’s all very nice for those of us who have

been engaged in this for thirty years to be thinking about

climate change. But until you get the guys who control the

exchequer, control the checkbook or the finance ministers

engaged, we’re not going to get anywhere. And they will be

engaged and maybe that will turn out to be the biggest

contribution of Pittsburgh.

Don Hoping: But you don't see any commitment from the

U.S. at that –

27

Timothy Wirth: I just don't know. I don't know, Don. I

think that those commitments won’t be made in Pittsburgh, but

will more likely be made as part of the broader global

negotiation leading into Copenhagen or at Copenhagen because

the finance part of it is so much a part of the overall “deal.”

Again, going back to what the Secretary General said, seal the

deal? Well, finance has to be part of that overall deal and

you want that to be part of the complete negotiation. That

would be my guess, anyway, having done a lot of these

negotiations. I don't have that on any kind of information, I

am just guessing that that will happen.

Don Hoping: Thanks.

Reid Detchon: All right, I think we can continue on down

the queue. Chantelle?

Chantelle: Thank you. My next question will come from

Steve Powers, The Wall Street Journal.

Steve Powers: Hi and unfortunately, my question was for

Senator Kerry, so I think I may have missed my opportunity, but

thanks anyway.

Reid Detchon: Thanks, Steve. Chantelle?

Chantelle: Thank you. Again, to ask a question is star

one on your touchtone phone now. Our next question will come

from Chris Holley, The Energy Daily.

28

Chris Holley: Thank you. Senator Wirth, I wanted to get

back to your amplification on Senator Kerry’s response to Ann’s

question about mileposts over the next two weeks. You

mentioned a decision on finance of sorts from the G20 since the

U.N., language on RED – again, since the U.N. If I heard

Senator Kerry correctly, however, I think he expressed some

disappointment that finance was not given a higher priority, if

you will, on the Pittsburgh agenda. Do you concur with that

and what would need to be done to give it more higher focus?

Timothy Wirth: I tried to answer that, Chris, before in

answering Don’s question about the Pittsburgh meeting. You are

in a negotiation and when you are trying to put, say, ten

disparate pieces together, you know, you are adding a little

bit here and taking a little bit away there and putting

together the overall package. The finance piece is going to be

extremely important to that. And if the G20 in Pittsburgh were

to say this is what we’re going to do or this is where we’re

going to go, you would have then two months – I can guarantee

you, you would have two months following that of people saying

well why isn’t it more or why is it as much as it is.

Everybody would be focused on that number rather than focused

on the finance as one piece of the overall package.

You have to have the overall package in order to, for some

people, to sell the amount of money that will be in the finance

29

section and in order to sell to the disappointed people who are

going to say it ought to be a lot more. Well, it’s not a lot

more because we’ve got the following other pieces. So it’s

part of an overall deal and I’m not at all surprised to see it

moving back into the realm of the Copenhagen negotiations,

which I think it will probably do.

Chris Holley: And if I could follow up briefly on this

issue.

Timothy Wirth: Sure.

Chris Holley: It’s been explained to me by any number of

people over the years at these international meetings that

while China seriously is a world player in the climate change

context, it also has a major role as a powerful spokesman or

ally, if you will, of all of the much smaller, more vulnerable

nations, what we call the G77, Group of 77. And I am told that

these nations, the not China, not India, not Mexico, are very

worried and always have been about the larger developing

nations striking some kind of comprehensive deal with the

western world in a way that leaves these long-standing,

simmering, things that anger the smaller people, like not

paying our commitments under the framework convention, etc.,

etc. How are we going to walk that balance, because we have to

secure a deal with the big guys, but we also have to bring the

little guys along as well?

30

Timothy Wirth: Well, you could turn your question into an

essay and it would be just about right in terms of the dilemmas

of the U.N. How do the big guys, who have 95 percent of the

economy and 95 percent of the emissions and 95 percent of the

military power and 95 percent of – you know, how do they

together, that big 20 or 25, then deal with 150 much, much

smaller countries and recognize and respect their sovereignty?

China has done that quite neatly. The group is called the G77

plus China. And sometimes China is part of the G77 and

sometimes China is plus China.

So they play both roles and increasingly are going to have

to do that. As they do so, what I find interesting, Chris, is

that China has emerged internationally as a country that you

see slowly but surely picking up its responsibilities in terms

of international diplomacy and international responsibility.

You know, they do want to play in the climate area, they are

looking for ways in which to do so. I believe, and from my

visits there and here and discussions, they really want to be a

constructive partner, but they want to do it in such a way that

respects where they come from and respects the needs of the

G77. So their role and how we deal with China – again, there’s

a whole diplomatic piece of the ladder of negotiation.

And I hope that the U.S. government has put into this – I

have always thought that if I was Secretary Clinton or the

31

White House, almost the most important thing that I would do

would be to have in charge of this part of the climate, energy,

security negotiation a very senior person who spent 50 percent

of his or her time in China, 50 percent of his or her time just

thinking about and working on and building this issue, because

it’s so important. We are not going to solve it and work it

all out, but we’ve got to make it work. We have to make it

work. And I was interested that that is where Senator Kerry

sort of stopped and began. That’s what he sees and it is

certainly true today and it will be truer next year and the

year after and the year after that.

Chris Holley: All right. Thank you, sir.

Timothy Wirth: Thank you – good question.

Reid Detchon: Chantelle?

Chantelle: Thank you. Our next question will come from

Chris Sumac, DPA.

Chris Sumac: Hi, Senator. I was wondering if you could

comment briefly on the major emitters meeting that is coming up

this week. Is that something, do you think, is this basically

setting up next week or do you expect something significant to

come out of –

Timothy Wirth: I think you are setting the table and I

think that’s what the major emitters, that meeting has done is

develop trust and develop common language and developed

32

relationships. That is all very important. President Bush

started that, that was important to do and this administration

obviously knows that it has to continue that. But it is, just

as you suggest, I think it is setting the table, it’s not going

to be a place where commitments, I would be surprised if

commitments got made. It sets the table for commitments that

can be made by the time we get to Copenhagen.

Chris Sumac: Thanks.

Timothy Wirth: Thank you.

Reid Detchon: Okay, I think we could be one or two more

question.

Chantelle: Thank you. Our next question will come from

Dean Scott, VNA News.

Dean Scott: Good afternoon. Hello, Senator Wirth.

Timothy Wirth: Dean, hi.

Dean Scott: Lots of good questions and thanks for doing

this today.

Timothy Wirth: Thank you for joining us.

Dean Scott: There have been a number of senators who have

suggested some form of border tariffs might be the price of

their support for the Senate climate bill. And as you know,

others such as Senator Kerry, have rejected that sort of tariff

approach as protectionist. Have you given any thought to what

a compromise might look like to resolve that rift?

33

Timothy Wirth: Well, there is a raging debate about this,

as you know, and is this sort of thing WTO compliant and if

not, how would you make it WTO compliant. I’m not enough of a

trade guru there and every time I go to one of these trade

meetings, I am reminded of days thirty years ago when we were

listening to the high priest of the nuclear establishment

talking about throw weights and vehicles and all of that sort

of that. I mean, the obscurity of what fits in what basket and

what doesn’t has escaped me or at least anesthetized me.

So I can’t tell you in any detail. I would not be at all

surprised that there will be some kind of a vehicle in here

that maybe provides a trigger over a period of time, but we

have to first get to the point of understanding that the

reductions that we all can agree upon might come out of a

different configuration. And that configuration might be the

kind of ladder concept that I was outlining earlier where you

have agreements on efficiency, renewables, forest, technology,

adaptation and so on and that you build your agreement around

that, not around absolute numbers of reduction.

I think that would be much healthier and if we can move in

that direction, then I think we can make some real progress.

If we get stuck on just the sheer numbers that are suggested in

the border tariff idea, then I think we might founder rapidly.

Dean Scott: Thank you.

34

Timothy Wirth: Thank you.

Reid Detchon: Okay, I think we can do one more,

Chantelle.

Chantelle: Thank you, sir. Our last question will come

from Neil McFarquarquar [phonetic], The New York Times.

Neil McFarquarquar: Senator Wirth, one of the things that

you hear from U.N. officials is that they are kind of running

out of time to hammer out the complicated agreement and they

feel like the political will is not there from any country,

really and that countries are spending too much time pointing

fingers at each other as opposed to accepting responsibility

for what they want to do themselves. I sort of feel like

Senator Kerry was just saying that we’re really going to put

the pressure on China as if the U.S. doesn’t pollute. So how

do you overcome that problem of everybody saying other people

at fault and not willing to own up to their own?

Timothy Wirth: Well, I have a view, Neil, which is not a

U.N. Foundation view or a U.N. view. It’s that this is a step

along the way. We are not going to solve the world’s climate

and energy problems in one agreement in Copenhagen. You know,

this is another step in the right direction. We are developing

trust, developing rules, developing the understandings that are

going to be necessary over the next ten, twenty, thirty years.

And that’s the way in which to do this. Of course, those who

35

are impatient for a total cap and trade deal, going back to

Andy Revkin’s question, for example, there isn’t going to be a

global cap and trade deal. But there will be those that

question it and say we don't have the political leadership to

get a cap and trade. Well, you know, you can’t get a cap and

trade almost anywhere under any circumstances, much less

something as complicated as a global cap and trade deal.

But we can, however, get efficiency agreements, we can

have energy access agreements, we can have renewable

agreements. And I think that we have to get our expectations

for Copenhagen lined up in terms of what are the building

blocks that come out of Copenhagen and then where do we go over

the next year, two years, three years. This roadmap is going

to continue for a long, long time and to allow ourselves to try

to have that roadmap get defined by the immediacy of politics

and the immediate return of exactly what happens and who does

what, in Copenhagen, I think, would be a big mistake and would

lead to people saying well Copenhagen isn’t a success. It will

be a success if we put together a number of these building

blocks and that could be the definition of a very real set of

achievements in Copenhagen.

Reid Detchon: Well, that is a good spot to end on. Thank

you, Senator Wirth and thanks for all of you for your calls.

Timothy Wirth: Thank you all for coming.

36

Reid Detchon: There will be a mp3 file available of this

call in about an hour. If you would like to get that, contact

John Anthony at the U.N. Foundation. With that, I think I will

just say thanks for participating.

Chantelle: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time

this conference is now ended. You may disconnect your phone

lines and have a great rest of the week. Thank you.

[End of Transcript]